Zapier vs Make (ex-Integromat) 2026: Which to Pick?

Over the years, no-code automation tools have become critical infrastructure for teams who want to connect their apps and save time on repetitive tasks. Two names dominate the market in 2026: Zapier and Make (formerly Integromat, rebranded in 2022). A third challenger, n8n, has grown fast and deserves a mention. Also worth knowing: Activepieces and Pipedream, but we keep the focus on the main two here.

‍

At Scroll, we use Make daily for client projects and internal automations. In this article, we compare Zapier and Make on every practical criterion — pricing, ease of use, AI integration, features — and tell you which one to pick based on your use case.

‍

Introduction to Zapier

‍

Zapier is the most popular automation tool in the world. It positions itself as "the easiest way to automate your tasks". The tool offers a massive library of 6,000+ app integrations — Google apps, Slack, Stripe, social networks, email providers, CRMs — and a set of native actions (filters, formatting, paths, loops).

‍

The principle is simple: an event (the "trigger") automatically starts an action. Flows are built vertically, top to bottom, and Zapier's visual editor is designed for non-technical users.

In 2024, Zapier launched Copilot, its AI assistant that generates zaps from a natural-language description. You describe what you want to automate, Copilot drafts the flow.

‍

Make (formerly Integromat) overview

‍

Make — rebranded from Integromat in 2022 — works on the same core principle as Zapier: triggers and actions connecting apps. The key visual difference: Make's scenario editor is a horizontal flowchart where apps are circles and connections are lines. It lets you see complex multi-branch logic at a glance.

Make includes Routers (branches within a scenario running multiple actions from one trigger), Iterators (loops over arrays), and native handling for HTTP requests and JSON — features that Zapier covers less elegantly.

‍

Since 2024, Make offers dedicated modules for Claude, OpenAI, Mistral and other LLMs. You can call these directly from a scenario without exposing API keys on the client side. A major advantage for teams building AI workflows.

‍

Zapier vs Make: the 5 criteria that matter in 2026

1. Ease of use — advantage Zapier

‍

Zapier wins on ease of use. The interface is cleaner for beginners, the automation templates are numerous and well-documented, and the whole experience is designed for non-developers.

‍

Make has a slightly steeper learning curve. The horizontal editor is more powerful once you're used to it but can feel intimidating at first. Teams often describe Make as "no-code with a low-code taste" — perfect for power users, less obvious for complete beginners.

2. Pricing — advantage Make

‍

Both tools offer a free plan, but the gap is huge:

‍

- Zapier Free: 100 tasks/month, limited to 2-step zaps. Very restrictive for real use cases.

- Make Free: 1,000 operations/month, full access to features including Webhooks.

‍

On paid plans, the price-per-operation ratio is also in Make's favor:

‍

- Zapier Starter: ~$20/month for 750 tasks.

- Make Core: ~$9/month for 10,000 operations.

‍

At the upper end, Zapier's enterprise tiers climb high, whereas Make's Teams and Enterprise plans stay comparatively accessible. If you're running tens of thousands of automations per month, Make can be 5-10× cheaper than Zapier.

‍

Always check current pricing on zapier.com/pricing and make.com/pricing — both tools adjust their plans regularly.

3. Features and power — advantage Make

‍

Make is the more powerful tool. It offers native JSON and HTTP handling, iterators for loops over arrays, custom functions, and the ability to create your own integrations via HTTP/API modules. You can build complex workflows that would require multiple zaps on Zapier.

‍

Zapier compensates with simplicity: if your use case fits into "when X happens, do Y", Zapier gets you there faster. But as soon as you need conditional branching, loops, or data transformations, Make is a better choice.

4. Integrations — advantage Zapier

‍

Zapier leads on raw integration count: 6,000+ apps in its catalog vs 1,500+ for Make. If you need an obscure SaaS tool, Zapier probably supports it.

‍

Make compensates with its HTTP/API modules: you can integrate any tool that exposes a REST API, even if there's no native connector. It takes more setup time, but in practice the limit is rarely reached.

‍

Verdict: Zapier wins on out-of-the-box breadth, Make on flexibility once you're past the basics.

5. Community — advantage Make (slightly)

‍

The no-code community matters: to learn, to unstick yourself, to reuse templates built by others.

‍

Zapier has a rich ecosystem on its own site: blog with practical advice, a community space for questions, a directory of Zapier experts, and thousands of publicly shared templates. External forums and Facebook groups (around 6,000 members for the largest) complete the picture.

‍

Make has a smaller on-platform help center but a significantly more active external community: the main Make Facebook group has 14,000+ members, and the Reddit and Discord communities are very responsive. If you need an answer quickly on a complex scenario, you're likely to get it faster on Make's community than on Zapier's.

6. AI integration — advantage Make

‍

Both tools shipped AI features in 2024-2025:

‍

- Zapier Copilot: generates zaps from a prompt, suggests improvements.

- Make Claude/OpenAI modules: dedicated modules to call Claude, GPT, Mistral, Gemini directly in scenarios. Plus MCP (Model Context Protocol) support, which lets AI agents read/write in Make scenarios as a tool.

‍

For teams building AI-powered workflows — calling LLMs, processing results, chaining actions — Make is the better fit in 2026. For teams who just want AI to help them build their automations, Zapier Copilot is more polished.

‍

What about n8n?

‍

n8n is the open-source challenger that has exploded in the past 2 years. Key differentiator: you can self-host it on your own infrastructure, with no per-operation pricing. For data-sensitive use cases (health, finance, regulated industries) or high-volume automation, n8n is often cheaper in the long run than both Make and Zapier.

‍

n8n also has strong AI integration — native LangChain support, Claude/OpenAI nodes, agent workflows. It's technical to set up (you need Docker and some DevOps basics) but the community is growing fast.

‍

Our take: Zapier for simplicity, Make for balance, n8n for self-hosting and ambition.

‍

Zapier vs Make: Scroll's choice

‍

So which wins? It depends on your use case:

‍

- You're a small business or marketer automating basic flows (add Gmail leads to a CRM, post to Slack when a Stripe payment arrives) → Zapier. Faster onboarding, good templates, gets you to value in 30 minutes.

- You're a startup or product team with more complex logic (multi-step scenarios, loops, conditional branches, AI calls) → Make. More powerful, significantly cheaper at scale, better AI integration.

- You have technical capability and data-sensitive workloads → n8n (self-hosted).

‍

At Scroll, we default to Make for our clients' projects. The price-per-operation at scale, the flexibility of HTTP/API modules, and the AI integration (Claude, MCP) make it the most future-proof of the three for the projects we see. We use n8n when data sovereignty is a hard requirement and Zapier when a client already has it deployed and doesn't want to migrate.

‍

Build your automation with Scroll

‍

Want a concrete audit of the automations that would save time in your business? Need a demo of what Make, Zapier or n8n can do for your specific stack? Reach out via our Make agency page. A project manager will get back to you with concrete examples and a pragmatic plan.

‍